The previous numbers still could have been explained, but the 338 kinda proves that something's broken ... the math simply doesn't add up, even assuming all of the below:a) he uses whitehelm as capital (60 glory tribute),b) he has ALL of the cities on 7 stars for tripple tribute,c) 12 city tribute consisting of the 12 highest glory-yielding cities (which adds up to 237 btw, including 60 from whitehelm),d) the cumulative nature of the guild bonus (which I used the max possible value for), so 10% per tribute, and cumulative afterwards, so 10% for 1 city, for 2 cities 0,1*1,1 and *1,1 for each next kingdom, which results in roughly 28,5% for 12 kingdoms.

More like, if i had more info on how tributes and percentages for how guild stuff affects tributes, i could find out how to build and solve the equation to determine the max number of glory one can gain for 12 kingdoms.

Got it, from my math i got 219, however here is where things get funky. This is based on tribute amount plus multiplier given on stars. Now of course this is without adding in the unknowns of guild info. Depending on how the percentages work, for 12 cities he would need either 50 gain or glory from elsewhere. I present yellow statue and Brown statue. Depending on how they are calculated, these two guys can reach over 350 glory for 12 kingdoms from the base math i was able to do. So either we need @sirrian to give us a look under the hood, or we figure out how they are calculate. Before we do though, @nguyenquoctrong can you give just a little more info, Can we get the guild statue information please?

d) the cumulative nature of the guild bonus (which I used the max possible value for), so 10% per tribute, and cumulative afterwards, so 10% for 1 city, for 2 cities 0,1*1,1 and *1,1 for each next kingdom, which results in roughly 28,5% for 12 kingdoms.

I think this assertion is the source of confusion. I think the multiplier ends up being worth way more than 28.5%.

The exact number depends heavily on the order that the kingdoms are included in the computation.At worst (lowest values first), I have it at 48.9% (326 glory). At best (highest values first), I have it at 113% (467 glory). I also got 219 glory as the baseline.

You can check my math and let me know if I messed anything up:docs.google.com

I think this assertion is the source of confusion. I think the multiplier ends up being worth way more than 28.5%.

I agree, the way I approached the multiplier was way too simplified. I assumed it's entirely separated from the tribute amounts until the very end. The way you presented in the table makes a lot more sense (especially in the light of those screenshots showing tributes above what my "idea" could explain) and creates new questions like: do the tributes always follow some specific order in the formula (alphabetical, or from the smallest tribute, or from the biggest, or according to which kingdom was leveled first) or it's entirely random (that alone would add a whole new layer of RNG on the overall tribute reward numbers).

Thank you for sharing that. That's an interesting idea, that it's possible to get 500'ish glory from tributes if the stars align (your example used the data specific to the case we were talking about, the actual potential is still a bit higher - as I wrote before, 237 glory from 12 kingdoms, instead of 219), fun fun.

A13 is =ROUND(ROUND(ROUND(ROUND(ROUND(ROUND(ROUND(ROUND(ROUND(ROUND(ROUND(ROUND(A1*$E$1+A2)*$E$1+A3)*$E$1+A4)*$E$1+A5)*$E$1+A6)*$E$1+A7)*$E$1+A8)*$E$1+A9)*$E$1+A10)*$E$1+A11)*$E$1+A12))
A14 is =ROUND(ROUND(ROUND(ROUND(ROUND(ROUND(ROUND(ROUND(ROUND(ROUND(ROUND(ROUND(A12*$E$1+A11)*$E$1+A10)*$E$1+A9)*$E$1+A8)*$E$1+A7)*$E$1+A6)*$E$1+A5)*$E$1+A4)*$E$1+A3)*$E$1+A2)*$E$1+A1))
A15 is =SUM(A1:A12)